Allowed¶25

Mohd Athar Anjum v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28, Delhi

Delhi HC9 May 2025W.P.(C)/3084/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Reassessment limitation; Section 148 notice dated 31.03.2024; AY 2016-17; six-year bar; first proviso to Section 149(1)(b); Section 148A(b) notice; Section 148A(d) order; assessment order dated 15.03.2025 under Section 147 set aside; Income Tax Act 1961; Manju Somani 2024:DHC:5411-DB; Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693; W.P.(C) 3084/2025; CM APPL. 14616/2025; Delhi High Court; Vibhu Bakhru; Tejas Karia; Mohd Athar Anjum.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148 and the assessment order dated 15.03.2025 set aside; pending application CM APPL. 14616/2025 disposed of. ¶25

Mohd Athar Anjum Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central… — Income Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3084/2025 CM APPL. 14616/2025 MOHD ATHAR ANJUM

¶4

.....Petitioner Through: Mr Paritosh Jain, Mr Divyansh Jain and Mr Abhishek Jain, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28, DELHI

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr Gaurav Gupta, SSC, Mr Shivendra Singh and Mr Yojit Pareek, JSCs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

¶9

O R D E R % 09.05.2025

¶10

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia , impugning a notice dated 31.03.2024 [impugned notice] issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ] for the Assessment Year [ AY ] 2016-17.

¶11

The petitioner also impugns the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, and the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act prior to the issuance of the impugned notice.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue stands covered by the decision of this Court in Manju Somani v. Income Tax Officer Ward-70(1) & Ors: Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:5411-DB.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 21:58:46

¶15

the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Rajeev Bansal : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 and drew the attention of this Court to the following passages from the said judgment:

¶16

“46. The ingredients of the proviso could be broken down for analysis as follows: (i) no notice under Section 148 of the new regime can be issued at any time for an assessment year beginning on or before 1 April 2021; (ii) if it is barred at the time when the notice is sought to be issued because of the “time limits specified under the provisions of” 149(1)(b) of the old regime. Thus, a notice could be issued under Section 148 of the new regime for assessment year 2021-2022 and before only if the time limit for issuance of such notice continued to exist under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime.

¶17

¶18

The first proviso to Section 149(1)(b) requires the determination of whether the time limit prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the old regime continues to exist for the assessment year 2021-2022 and before. Resultantly, a notice under Section 148 of the new regime cannot be issued if the period of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year has expired at the time of issuance of the notice. This also ensures that the new time limit of ten years prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime applies prospectively. For example, for the assessment year 2012-2013, the ten year period would have expired on 31 March 2023, while the six year period expired on 31 March 2019. Without the proviso to Section 149(1)(b) of the new regime, the Revenue could have had the power to reopen assessments for the year 2012-2013 if the escaped assessment amounted to Rupees fifty lakhs or more. The proviso limits the retrospective operation of Section 149(1)(b) to protect the interests of the

¶19

¶20

assesses.”

¶21

In the present case, the period of six years from the end of the relevant AY 2016-17 expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned notice has been issued thereafter, and the same is thus barred by limitation.

¶22

The learned counsel for the respondent concurs with the aforesaid view.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 15.03.2025.

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned notice as well as the assessment order dated 15.03.2025 are set aside.

¶25

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The pending application is also disposed of.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J

MAY 09, 2025 M

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 21:58:46

Mohd Athar Anjum v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Athar Anjum v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 28, Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nikon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -04, Delhi & Ors.

Sqn Ldr Swati Prakash Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Vinod Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ajay Prakash Mishra Vs the Registrar Cooperative Societies through Assistant Registrar & Anr.

Maanoj Agarwala Vs Idbi Bank

Loconav India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Delhi and Anr.

Sandeep Chopra Vs Commissioner of MCD & Ors.

Rajkumar Sukhdevsinhji & Anr. Vs Idbi Bank

M/S Nikon Finlease Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -04, Delhi & Ors.

Parveen Kumar Gupta Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors.

Parveen Kumar Gupta Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors.

Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22 2 New Delhi & Anr.

Lalit Mohan Madhan Vs the National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi & Ors.

M/S Shirdi Sai Medical Agency Vs Deepa Raghav